Perceptions and practices related to birthweight in rural Bangladesh: Implications for neonatal health programs in low- and middle-income settings.

BACKGROUND: Globally, low birthweight (LBW) infants (<2.5 kilograms) contribute up to 80% of neonatal mortality. In Bangladesh, approximately 62% of all births occur at home and therefore, weighing newborns immediately after birth is not feasible. Thus, estimates of birthweight in Bangladesh are mostly obtained based on maternal perception of the newborn's birth size. Little is known about how birthweight is perceived in rural communities, and whether families associate birthweight with newborn's health status. Our objective was to explore families' perceptions of newborn's birthweight, and preventive and care practices for a LBW newborn in rural Bangladesh. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in two rural settings of Bangladesh, including 32 in-depth interviews (11 with pregnant women, 12 with recently delivered women, 4 with husbands whose wives were pregnant or had a recent birth, 5 with mothers-in-law whose daughters-in-law were pregnant or had a recent birth), 2 focus group discussions with husbands and 4 key-informant interviews with community health workers. We used thematic analysis to analyse the data. RESULTS: Most participants did not consider birthweight a priority for assessing a newborn's health status, although there was a desire for a healthy newborn. Recognition of different categories of birthweight was subjective and often included several physical descriptors including birth size of the newborn. LBW was not considered as a criterion of a newborn's illness unless the newborn appeared unwell. Maternal poor nutrition, inadequate diet in pregnancy, anaemia, illness during pregnancy, short stature, twin births and influence of supernatural spirit were identified as the major causes of LBW. Women's preventive practices for LBW or small newborns were predominantly constrained by a lack of awareness of birthweight and fear of caesarean section. As an effort to avoid caesarean section during birth, several women tended to perform potentially harmful practices in order to give birth to a small size newborn; such as avoiding nutritious food and eating less in pregnancy. Common practices to treat a LBW or small newborn who appeared ill included breastfeeding, feeding animal milk, feeding sugary water, feeding formula, oil massage, keeping the small newborn warm and seeking care from formal and informal care providers including a spiritual leader. Maternal lack of decision-making power, financial constraint, home birth and superstition were the major challenges to caring for a LBW newborn. CONCLUSION: Birthweight was not well-understood in the rural community, which highlighted substantial challenges to the prevention and care practices of LBW newborns. Community-level health education is needed to promote awareness related to the recognition of birthweight in rural settings.

Planned home birth.

With increasing medical advances and the ability to rescue the mother and her baby, there has been a growth in the number of women who deliver in hospital facilities. This allows full care to be provided if required [1]. Maternal and perinatal mortality has fallen accordingly. This improvement in mother and baby outcomes has produced a conception of maternity safety in the developed world and a call for the return to home birth. This has concerned the obstetricians and particularly the paediatricians who feel that this produces unacceptable risk to the mother and her baby. However, evidence, mostly from Europe but some from the US, suggests that home birth can be relatively safe in the right circumstances. This needs a fully integrated comprehensive maternity care network that is supportive and responsive. The question is whether this should be supported to help improve the safety of home birth or resisted because home birth in many situations is inherently unsafe.

Committee Opinion No 697 Summary: Planned Home Birth.

In the United States, approximately 35,000 births (0.9%) per year occur in the home. Approximately one fourth of these births are unplanned or unattended. Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists believes that hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest settings for birth, each woman has the right to make a medically informed decision about delivery. Importantly, women should be informed that several factors are critical to reducing perinatal mortality rates and achieving favorable home birth outcomes. These factors include the appropriate selection of candidates for home birth; the availability of a certified nurse-midwife, certified midwife or midwife whose education and licensure meet International Confederation of Midwives' Global Standards for Midwifery Education, or physician practicing obstetrics within an integrated and regulated health system; ready access to consultation; and access to safe and timely transport to nearby hospitals. The Committee on Obstetric Practice considers fetal malpresentation, multiple gestation, or prior cesarean delivery to be an absolute contraindication to planned home birth.

Committee Opinion No. 697: Planned Home Birth.

In the United States, approximately 35,000 births (0.9%) per year occur in the home. Approximately one fourth of these births are unplanned or unattended. Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists believes that hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest settings for birth, each woman has the right to make a medically informed decision about delivery. Importantly, women should be informed that several factors are critical to reducing perinatal mortality rates and achieving favorable home birth outcomes. These factors include the appropriate selection of candidates for home birth; the availability of a certified nurse-midwife, certified midwife or midwife whose education and licensure meet International Confederation of Midwives' Global Standards for Midwifery Education, or physician practicing obstetrics within an integrated and regulated health system; ready access to consultation; and access to safe and timely transport to nearby hospitals. The Committee on Obstetric Practice considers fetal malpresentation, multiple gestation, or prior cesarean delivery to be an absolute contraindication to planned home birth.

Ethics and professional responsibility: Essential dimensions of planned home birth.

Planned home birth is a paradigmatic case study of the importance of ethics and professionalism in contemporary perinatology. In this article we provide a summary of recent analyses of the Centers for Disease Control database on attendants and birth outcomes in the United States. This summary documents the increased risks of neonatal mortality and morbidity of planned home birth as well as bias in Apgar scoring. We then describe the professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics, which is based on the professional medical ethics of two major figures in the history of medical ethics, Drs. John Gregory of Scotland and Thomas Percival of England. This model emphasizes the identification and careful balancing of the perinatologist's ethical obligations to pregnant, fetal, and neonatal patients. This model stands in sharp contrast to one-dimensional maternal-rights-based reductionist model of obstetric ethics, which is based solely on the pregnant woman's rights. We then identify the implications of the professional responsibility model for the perinatologist's role in directive counseling of women who express an interest in or ask about planned home birth. Perinatologists should explain the evidence of the increased, preventable perinatal risks of planned home birth, recommend against it, and recommend planned hospital birth. Perinatologists have the professional responsibility to create and sustain a strong culture of safety committed to a home-birth-like experience in the hospital. By routinely fulfilling these professional responsibilities perinatologists can help to prevent the documented, increased risks planned home birth.

Home birth of infants with congenital anomalies: a case study and ethical analysis of careproviders' obligations.

This article presents the case of a mother who is planning a home birth with a midwife with the shared knowledge that the fetus would have congenital anomalies of unknown severity. We discuss the right of women to choose home birth, the caregivers' duty to the infant, and the careproviders' dilemma about how to respond to this request. The ethical duties of concerned careproviders are explored and reframed as professional obligations to the mother, infant, and their profession at large. Recommendations are offered based on this case in order to clarify the considerations surrounding not only home birth of a fetus with anticipated anomalies, but also to address the ethical obligations of caregivers who must navigate the unique tension between respecting the mother's wishes and the duty of the careproviders to deliver optimal care.

Improving patient-doctor communication about risk and choice in obstetrics and gynecology through medical education: a call for action.

The authors suggest that three articles published in the Fall 2013 issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics could be used in graduate medical education to help students be more prepared to address differences in professional opinion and improve their skills in patient-doctor communication.

Homebirth and the future child.

Debate around homebirth typically focuses on the risk of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity--the primary focus is on deaths. There is little discussion on the risk of long-term disability to the future child. We argue that maternal and perinatal mortality are truly tragic outcomes, but focusing disproportionately on them overshadows the importance of harm to a future child created by avoidable, foreseeable disability. The interests of future children are of great moral importance. Both professionals and pregnant women have an ethical obligation to minimize risk of long-term harm to the future child; harm to people who will exist is a clear and uncontroversial morally relevant harm. The medical literature does not currently adequately address the risk of long-term disability, which is at least as relevant as other outcomes. The choice of place of elective birth (home, hospital or other) may only be justified if it does not expose the future child to an unreasonable increased risk of avoidable disability. Doctors' duty of care for the life of the pregnant woman and her fetus may be overridden by the woman's choices. But further research is required to document the prevalence of long term avoidable disability associated with different birth place choices. Couples should be informed of this risk and doctors should attempt to dissuade couples when they elect a place of birth that puts the health and well-being of the future child at risk.

Safe Delivery Posts: an intervention to provide equitable childbirth care services to vulnerable groups in Zahedan, Iran.

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been a shift towards alternative childbirth services to increase access to skilled care during childbirth. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the past 10 years of experience of the first Safe Delivery Posts (SDPs) established in Zahedan, Iran to determine the number of deliveries and the intrapartum transfer rates, and to examine the reasons why women choose to give birth at a Safe Delivery Post and not in one of the four large hospitals in Zahedan. DESIGN: A mixed-methods research strategy was used for this study. In the quantitative phase, an analysis was performed on the existing data that are routinely collected in the health-care sector. In the qualitative phase, a grounded theory approach was used to collect and analyse narrative data from in-depth interviews with women who had given birth to their children at the Safe Delivery Posts. SETTING: Women were selected from two Safe Delivery Posts in Zahedan city in southeast Iran. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen mothers who had given birth in the Safe Delivery Posts were interviewed. FINDINGS: During the 10-year period, 22,753 low-risk women gave birth in the Safe Delivery Posts, according to the records. Of all the women who were admitted to the Safe Delivery Posts, on average 2.1% were transferred to the hospital during labour or the postpartum period. Three key categories emerged from the analysis: barriers to hospital use, opposition to home birth and finally, reasons for choosing the childbirth care provided by the SDPs. KEY CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Implementing a model of midwifery care that offers the benefits of modern medical care and meets the needs of the local population is feasible and sustainable. This model of care reduces the cost of giving birth and ensures equitable access to care among vulnerable groups in Zahedan.

Unassisted childbirth: why mothers are leaving the system.

Unassisted childbirth is a topical subject that has sparked ethical and legal debate. Although there are little data surrounding unassisted birthing practice, concerns over consent, procedural intervention and loss of the birthing experience may be driving women away from formal healthcare. The healthcare system needs to work toward understanding this practice and, perhaps with the support of legislation, address the concerns of mothers in order to ensure optimal childbirth outcomes.

When a mother wants to deliver with a midwife at home.

In this special issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, different views on both the ethical desirability of women delivering in hospitals or at home with midwives are discussed. What careproviders, including midwives, should recommend to mothers in regard to the place of giving birth is considered. Emotional concerns likely to be of importance to mothers, fathers, midwives, and doctors are also presented. Finally, possible optimal approaches at the levels of both policy and the bedside are suggested.

Planned home birth in the United States and professionalism: a critical assessment.

Planned home birth has been considered by some to be consistent with professional responsibility in patient care. This article critically assesses the ethical and scientific justification for this view and shows it to be unjustified. We critically assess recent statements by professional associations of obstetricians, one that sanctions and one that endorses planned home birth. We base our critical appraisal on the professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics, which is based on the ethical concept of medicine from the Scottish and English Enlightenments of the 18th century. Our critical assessment supports the following conclusions. Because of its significantly increased, preventable perinatal risks, planned home birth in the United States is not clinically or ethically benign. Attending planned home birth, no matter one's training or experience, is not acting in a professional capacity, because this role preventably results in clinically unnecessary and therefore clinically unacceptable perinatal risk. It is therefore not consistent with the ethical concept of medicine as a profession for any attendant to planned home birth to represent himself or herself as a "professional." Obstetric healthcare associations should neither sanction nor endorse planned home birth. Instead, these associations should recommend against planned home birth. Obstetric healthcare professionals should respond to expressions of interest in planned home birth by pregnant women by informing them that it incurs significantly increased, preventable perinatal risks, by recommending strongly against planned home birth, and by recommending strongly for planned hospital birth. Obstetric healthcare professionals should routinely provide excellent obstetric care to all women transferred to the hospital from a planned home birth.The professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics requires obstetricians to address and remedy legitimate dissatisfaction with some hospital settings and address patients' concerns about excessive interventions. Creating a sustained culture of comprehensive safety, which cannot be achieved in planned home birth, informed by compassionate and respectful treatment of pregnant women, should be a primary focus of professional obstetric responsibility.

Ethics and the architecture of choice for home and hospital birth.

In this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, we offer a variety of perspectives on the moral and medical responsibilities of professionals with regard to a woman's choice of where she will birth her baby. The articles in this special issue focus on place of birth, but they have larger resonance for clinicians whose decisions about providing the best possible care require them to sort through evidence, consider their own possible biases and the limitations of their training, and balance the wishes of their patients with the demands of colleagues, hospitals, and insurers. The articles published in this special issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics will help those who wrestle with such dilemmas in everyday clinical decision making.

A reconsideration of home birth in the United States.

Home births continue to constitute only a small percentage of all deliveries in the United States, in part because of concerns about their safety. While the literature is decidedly mixed in regard to the degree of risk, there are several studies that report that home birth may at times entail a small absolute increase in perinatal risks in circumstances that cannot always be anticipated prior to the onset of labor. While the definition of "small" will vary between individuals, and publications vary in the level of risk they ascribe to birth at home, studies with the least methodological flaws and with adequate power often cite an excess death rate in the range of one per thousand. Home birth is, in that regard, but one example of patients' choices and plans that sometimes carry increased risk or include alternatives that individual physicians feel uncomfortable supporting or recommending. Our intention in this opinion piece is not to advocate for or against home birth. Rather, we recognize that home birth is but one example of a patient choice that might differ from what a provider feels is in a woman's best interests. In this article we will discuss ethical considerations in such circumstances using home birth as an example. We consider in this article how the ethical principles of respect for autonomy and non-maleficence can be balanced using, among other examples, the choice by some for a home birth. We discuss how absolute rather than relative risk should guide individuals' evaluation of patient choices. We also consider how in some circumstances, the value and safety added by a physician's participation may outweigh a potentially small increment in absolute risk that might result from a patient's decision to deliver at home because of a perceived physician endorsement. We recognize, however, that doctors and midwives participating in choices they have not recommended, or may even believe will lead to or increase risk for adverse outcomes, presents dilemmas and raises important questions. When does respect for patient choice and autonomy become support for poor decision making? When is participation not respectful but enabling? Finally we discuss the role and responsibility of organized medicine in making all births as safe as possible.

Moral science: ethical argument and the production of knowledge about place of birth.

Ethical arguments about caregiver responsibility and the limits of client autonomy rely on best evidence about the risks and benefits of medical interventions. But when the evidence is unclear, or when the peer-reviewed literature presents conflicting accounts of the evidence, how are clinicians and their clients to recommend or decide the best course of action? Conflicting evidence about the outcomes of home and hospital birth in the peer-reviewed literature offers an opportunity to explore this question. We present the contrary evidence and describe the social and cultural elements that influence the production of the science of birth, including professional, publication, and critical bias. We then consider how the science of birth has been used an misused in making ethical arguments about preferred place of birth. We conclude with a number of recommendations about the responsible use of the evidence, arguing for an "ethics of information" that can be drawn on to guide caregivers and clients in the use of evidence for clinical decision making.

Women's perceptions of childbirth risk and place of birth.

In the United States, clinical interventions such as epidurals, intravenous infusions, oxytocin, and intrauterine pressure catheters are used almost routinely in births in the hospital setting, despite evidence that the overutilization of such interventions likely plays a key role in increasing the need for cesarean section (CS).' In 2010, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 32.8 percent of births in the U.S. were by CS.2 The U.S. National Institutes of Health has reported that CS increases avoidable maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.3To increase understanding of what might motivate the overuse of CS in the U.S., we investigated the factors that influenced women's decision making around childbirth, because women's conscious and unconscious choices about giving birth could influence whether they would choose or allow delivery by CS. In this article, we report findings about women's decisions related to place of birth-at home or in a hospital. We found that choosing a place of birth was significant in how women in our study attempted to mitigate their perceptions of the risks of childbirth for themselves and their infant. Concern for the safety of the infant was a central, driving factor in the decisions women made about giving birth, and this concern heightened their perceptions of the risks of childbirth. Heightened perceptions of risk about the safety of the fetus during childbirth were found to affect women's ability to accurately assess the risk of using clinical interventions such as the time of admission, epidural anesthesia, oxytocin, or cesarean birth, which has important implications for clinical practice, prenatal education, perinatal research, medical decision making, and informed consent.

Exceptional deliveries: home births as ethical anomalies in American obstetrics.

Interest in home birth appears to be growing among American women, and most obstetricians can expect to encounter patients who are considering home birth. In 2011, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued an opinion statement intended to guide obstetricians in responding to such patients. In this article, I examine the ACOG statement in light of the historical and contemporary clinical realities surrounding home birth in the United States, an examination guided in part by my own experiences as an obstetrician in home-birth-friendly and home-birth-unfriendly medical milieus. Comparison with other guidelines indicates that ACOG treats home birth as an ethical exception: comparable evidence leads to strikingly different recommendations in the case of home birth and the case of trial of labor following a prior cesarean; and ACOG treats other controversial issues that involve similar ethical questions quite differently. By casting the provision of information as not just the primary but the sole ethical responsibility of the obstetrician, ACOG statement obviates obstetricians' responsibilities to provide appropriate clinical care and to make the safest possible clinical environment for those mothers who choose home birth and for their newborns. What, on its face, seems to be a statement of respect for women's autonomy, implicitly authorizes behaviors that unethically restrain truly autonomous choices. Obstetricians need not attend home births, I argue. Our ethical duties do, however, oblige us (1) to refer clients to skilled clinicians who will attend home birth, (2) to continue respectful antenatal care for those women choosing home birth, (3) to provide appropriate consultation to home birth attendants, and (4) to ensure that transfers of care are smooth and nonpunitive.

Being safe: making the decision to have a planned home birth in the United States.

Although there is evidence that supports the safety of planned home birth for healthy women, less than 1 percent of women in the United States choose to have their baby at home. An ethnographic study of the experience of planned home birth provided rich descriptions of women's experiences planning, preparing for, and having a home birth.This article describes findings related to how women make the decision to have a planned home birth. For these women, being safe emerged as central in making the decision. For them, being safe included four factors: avoiding technological birth interventions, knowing the midwife and the midwife knowing them, feeling comfortable and protected at home, and knowing that backup hospital medical care was accessible if needed.

Facilitating women's choice in maternity care.

Maternity careproviders often have strong views concerning a woman's choice of where to give birth.These views may be based on the ethical principle of autonomy, or on the principle of beneficence. The authors propose that an approach utilizing shared decision making allows careproviders and women to move beyond disagreements regarding which evidence on risk should "counts' instead adopting a process of increased knowledge and support for women and their partner while they make choices regarding place of birth.

Legal briefing: home birth and midwifery.

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving home birth and midwifery in the United States. Specifically, we focus on new legislative, regulatory, and judicial acts that impact women's' access to direct entry (non-nurse) midwives. We categorize these legal developments into the following 12 categories. 1. Background and History 2. Certified Nurse-Midwives 3. Direct Entry Midwives 4. Prohibition of Direct Entry Midwives 5. Enforcement of Prohibition 6. Challenges to Prohibition 7. Forbearance without License 8. Voluntary Licensure 9. Unclear and Uncertain Status 10. Growth of DEM Licensure 11. Licensure Restrictions 12. Medicaid Coverage